I can only assume those two effects you have observed, to be from the other definition of "atmosphere": something that makes the gameplay "feel more real", even if it technically isn't realistic.
Turbulence: one could, theoretically, argue that the turbulence is coming from your ship's thrusters firing. Which is fine, except you still get the turbulence happening when you're travelling at constant speed, or drifting with FA Off under gravity alone.
Haze and fog: yes, logically, there shouldn't be any. If an 0.01-atmospheres planet has air that's too thick to land on, then a planet with "air" that's thick enough to cause haze really shouldn't be landable either. Look at the Apollo pics; there's no haze on the Moon. Though I suppose if you want a scientific explanation, I recall reading an old (pre-Apollo) sci-fi story about astronauts encountering "haze" on the Moon; turns out it was ultra-fine dust, kept aloft by the low gravity and static electricity.
I would also question whether or not a planet with active "fumaroles" and "geysers" on it ought to be be classed as "no atmosphere". All those fumaroles and geysers are venting something out into the vacuum; presumably some of it is gas (or turns into gas at the surface) and that gas at least should be hanging around, which should theoretically create an atmosphere thick enough to disqualify a landing. Enceladus (another moon of Saturn, on which these airless-moons-with-geysers is presumably based) does have a thin atmosphere, though ED classes it as a "no atmosphere" moon in the ED universe. It is actually rather difficult to get absolutely no atmosphere; zero is a mathematical abstract concept that is a difficult thing to achieve in the real world.
